Author
Topic: Why is the eagle, two-headed? (Read 5166 times)

I read somewhere that the Byzantine (and nowadays the flag of the Orthodox Church)has a two-headed eagle (that I knew) and that one head looks towards New Rome and theother towards Elder Rome. Is this true?

I have expressed many times in the past that Rome and Constantinople might be in communion withouteven realising. (Since the anathema of Cerularius was directed to Humbert and not the Western Church andthe anathema of Humbert had no power at all since the Pope had died and hence he had lost his authority asCardinal!)

Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I lovedis now a woman, but I am still a child...-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis

Actually, the double-headed eagle symbolized the one body of Christ which was united yet led by the two parts: church and empire (government). It represented the ideal of the Roman Empire, that the Empire was steered by God through the Emperor and the Church.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I'd like to see that source... I find many of the points of Roman history to be quite fascinating...

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to track down the written source, but there's an internet site that talks about it here http://flagspot.net/flags/gr_byz.html. The symbol itself seems to be of unknown antiquity, and to have had various symbolisms, Church and State, East and West, etc. throughout the Roman era.

also, what's this 'ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡' and 'Nektarios' BS? Y'all are going to really confuse me (and I doubt I'll be the only one) ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

« Last Edit: March 17, 2006, 12:52:04 AM by greekischristian »

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Could that tattoo be considered as deforming the temple? Or is it OK because it has the 2 headed eagle? Just curious, not looking to criticize. I don't have the ----- to get a tattoo. I'm not good with pain.

Hmmm...as I was refilling the candles in the altar of my parish today, I accidently bumped one of them, and in my effort to prevent that one from falling, I consequently bumped my head on the main procession cross. As I grabbed the procession cross to prevent that from falling also, I noticed a particular detail that had never drawn my attention...it had the symbol of the double-headed eagle. I took a shot of it on my phone:

I know that my parish tends to purchase alot of its liturgical items (censers etc.) from a local Greek Orthodox store, due to location and price, so I guess therefore that I can just attribute the existence of this symbol within my local Coptic parish to human error.

« Last Edit: June 24, 2006, 02:19:14 PM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Even if it did exist in the pre-Chalcedonian Church, I doubt the OO Churches would want it seen in their buildings, considering that it is a symbol that supports the kind of actions done by the Emperor in support of the Church in the 5th century, actions which directly affected y'all.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Hmmm...as I was refilling the candles in the altar of my parish today, I accidently bumped one of them, and in my effort to prevent that one from falling, I consequently bumped my head on the main procession cross. As I grabbed the procession cross to prevent that from falling also, I noticed a particular detail that had never drawn my attention...it had the symbol of the double-headed eagle. I took a shot of it on my phone:

I know that my parish tends to purchase alot of its liturgical items (censers etc.) from a local Greek Orthodox store, due to location and price, so I guess therefore that I can just attribute the existence of this symbol within my local Coptic parish to human error.

Does the Lord usually need to go to such lengths to get your attention? :-)

Even if it did exist in the pre-Chalcedonian Church, I doubt the OO Churches would want it seen in their buildings, considering that it is a symbol that supports the kind of actions done by the Emperor in support of the Church in the 5th century, actions which directly affected y'all.

No, not necessarily. I think you're falsely inferring some sort of a general position on the relationship between Church and State from a particular response to a particular incident. Either that, or your interpretation of the symbol as one that supports the actions of Marcion, Justinian etc. is simply not one shared by the OO Church. I mean, if the symbol represents, as you said in your initial post, that God generally steers the Church through both religious and state bodies and figures, then we would have no problem with that per se. However, just as heads of the Church have been known to apostatise (e.g. Nestorius), so too, have heads of the State (e.g. Julian). For us OO's, it's not the fact that Marcion et al interfered with Church matters per se, but rather that they interfered to the detriment of Church unity and The Faith for the sake of their own political agendas. Political leaders are not immune from rebellion to God and His inspired guidance.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

I think you're falsely inferring some sort of a general position on the relationship between Church and State from a particular response to a particular incident. Either that, or your interpretation of the symbol as one that supports the actions of Marcion, Justinian etc. is simply not one shared by the OO Church.

....or, perhaps it was none of these and they were simply joking.....

btw, it's not a Cross in the photo, it's a fan.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

As ozgeorge has pointed out, the photo shows a standard Orthodox ceremonial fan, which, in the early Church, was used to keep bugs away from the bread and wine. Nowadays, they are simply carried in processions, especially the Great Entrance, and they almost always have an Icon of the Seraphim on them, since the Seraphim are said to be the angelic order that ministers to the very Throne of God in heavenly worship.

P.S. Now that we've determined that this is probably a very minor (and accidental) case of EO influence on OO liturgical praxis, I must ask: How does the OO Church justify/explain the historical origins of its policy (canonical and liturgical) for marriage? I ask because the Orthodox marriage rite itself was not developed until the 8th century, and the Church did not allow for ecclesiastical divorce and remarriage until even later. However, from what I have been able to tell, the OO Churches have a very similar rite and also the same canonical policies. This seems to be a clear example of EO practices being adopted by the OO Church many centuries after Chalcedon. Very interesting, no?

« Last Edit: June 24, 2006, 06:11:03 PM by pensateomnia »

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

As ozgeorge has pointed out, the photo shows a standard Orthodox ceremonial fan, which, in the early Church, was used to keep bugs away from the bread and wine.

Interesting, I was unaware of that.

Quote

P.S. Now that we've determined that this is probably a very minor (and accidental) case of EO influence on OO liturgical praxis,

I hardly see how this represents a case of EO influence on OO liturgical praxis on any level. As I stated in my previous post, my local parish tends to purchase alot of its items from a local Greek Orthodox store because it's economic and efficient to do so, and because generally there's no real difference in the liturgical items we use. I don't see how this evidences influence on our praxis, which would remain the same, regardless of where we bought our liturgical items from.

Quote

How does the OO Church justify/explain the historical origins of its policy (canonical and liturgical) for marriage? I ask because the Orthodox marriage rite itself was not developed until the 8th century, and the Church did not allow for ecclesiastical divorce and remarriage until even later. However, from what I have been able to tell, the OO Churches have a very similar rite and also the same canonical policies.

I'm not too sure about the history of the liturgical marriage rite; I will look into it for you. As far as canonical policies on divorce are concerned, you will find that our Church is much more stringent than yours. It simply does not permit divorce unless for Biblically grounded reasons. It has refused to exercise economy in this area.

Quote

This seems to be a clear example of EO practices being adopted by the OO Church many centuries after Chalcedon. Very interesting, no?

Highly unlikely; but it also begs the question i.e. it delves into the whole "who took what from who" question (a question most significantly debated with respect to many issues - the origin of the omonogenes hymn is one issue that comes to mind).

« Last Edit: June 24, 2006, 06:25:25 PM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

I hardly see how this represents a case of EO influence on OO liturgical praxis on any level. As I stated in my previous post, my local parish tends to purchase alot of its items from a local Greek Orthodox store because it's economic and efficient to do so, and because generally there's no real difference in the liturgical items we use. I don't see how this evidences influence on our praxis, which would remain the same, regardless of where we bought our liturgical items from.

The Coptic Church actuallly did use fans in the Liturgy made of ostrich or peacock feathers. Egypt is a hot country teeming with insects. They are rarely seen in modern Coptic Churches, but perhaps the ceremonial fan recalls this. The fan was the mark of the Deacon. The 16th century Coptic Saint Barsonophios explains the role of the Deacon as: "He is like the Cherubim, shouting with praise and fanning over the awesome Mysteries just like those in Heaven fan with their wings. And remember that those wings indicate the ascension of the mind away from the heavy earthlies to the heavenlies. He chants within his innerself the praise of triumph to the majestic glory of our Lord..."Come on EA, you should know this. It's on Tasbeha.org.

« Last Edit: June 24, 2006, 06:49:16 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I hardly see how this represents a case of EO influence on OO liturgical praxis on any level. As I stated in my previous post, my local parish tends to purchase alot of its items from a local Greek Orthodox store because it's economic and efficient to do so, and because generally there's no real difference in the liturgical items we use. I don't see how this evidences influence on our praxis, which would remain the same, regardless of where we bought our liturgical items from.

That's all I meant by "very minor influence," i.e. your parish buys EO stuff, which has EO symbols on it and those EO symbols are used in your liturgical sevices. However, why the Coptic rites in general now only use the fans for processions and not for other more ancient things is an interesting question. That is, why do the Copts now use Byzantine-style metal fans, and these only in processions without waving them about (another Byzantine adaptation), instead of in the manner Saint Barsonophios describes even as recently as the 16th century?

Quote

I'm not too sure about the history of the liturgical marriage rite; I will look into it for you.

Have you read the EO one? Before doing any detailed research in manuscripts/history, I wonder just how similar the rites are as of now.

Quote

As far as canonical policies on divorce are concerned, you will find that our Church is much more stringent than yours. It simply does not permit divorce unless for Biblically grounded reasons. It has refused to exercise economy in this area.

Only adultery and death? Not abandonment or infertility?

At any rate, the Coptic Church does allow for ecclesiastical re-marriage, doesn't it? (Last time the Coptic policies on re-marriage were described to me, they were play-by-play out of the Byzantine modifications of the 9th and 10th century.) This is significant because remarriage was absolutely forbidden by the ancient Church except in the case of widowhood. The EO Church didn't allow for re-marriage in other cases until the 9th century, and it only made the concession because of very specific political and historical pressures (even so it caused a major schism within the Byzantine Church, because many people thought it was totally unacceptable to change something so obviously mandated by Scripture, canon law and the early Fathers!).

Quote

Highly unlikely; but it also begs the question i.e. it delves into the whole "who took what from who" question

Unless there is some particular controversy in the history of the Coptic Church that caused it to radically change its ancient canonical practice (by allowing for ecclesiastical remarriage), I don't see how it's unlikely or even much of a question. We know when and where and why the Byzantine Church changed its policies. Why did the Coptic?

« Last Edit: June 24, 2006, 06:49:01 PM by pensateomnia »

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

btw, the Coptic church might not use the fans anymore, but the Syrians and Armenians do, and they have bells attached to them and "shake" them with a horizontal twist of the wrist. I believe the bells represent the holy spirit at the high points of Armenian and Syrian worship bt I'm not so sure.

That is, why do the Copts now use Byzantine-style metal fans, and these only in processions without waving them about (another Byzantine adaptation),

Actually, in the Cathedral and larger Churches of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese here in Australia, the fans are still "waved" over the Gifts as well as carried in procession. The Deacons and/or Acolytes hold them at an angle at the north and south sides of the Holy Table during the Eucharistic Prayer and rhythmically raise and lower them. At the ROCOR liturgy I attended in Sydney, the Deacons did the same.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

The practise St. Bosphorous describes is one I am familiar with. I am also familiar with the fact that ostrich/peacock feathers were often used to effect this practise. Today, we use linen cloths to exercise this practise, during the Reconciliation Prayer at the point in the Liturgy where the priest begins his response saying, "axion ke dikeon, axion ke dikeon, alithos ghar khen omethmi, axion ke dikeon" ("Right and worthy, right and worthy, truly indeed, it is right and worthy" - in reference to the act of giving thanks to the Lord)).

What I was unfamiliar with was a) the idea that this was called "fanning", b) the idea that “fanning” had the ancient purpose of keeping insects away (St. Bosphorous merely speaks of its symbolic purpose — one I was already familiar with), and c) the fact those flamboyant metallic “crosses” used during processions were “fans”, or that fans were used during processions in any event. When you referred to them as fans, I thought you were poking fun at the design; I didn't know there were in fact items that were officially known as "liturgical fans".

« Last Edit: June 25, 2006, 08:21:51 AM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Today, we use linen cloths to exercise this practise, during the Reconciliation Prayer at the point in the Liturgy where the priest begins his response saying, "axion ke dikeon, axion ke dikeon, alithos ghar khen omethmi, axion ke dikeon" ("Right and worthy, right and worthy, truly indeed, it is right and worthy" - in reference to the act of giving thanks to the Lord)).

Our Priests also fan using one of the three red cloths which cover the Holy Gifts. The Bread has one cover, the chalice has another, and a large cloth called the "Aer" covers them both. During the recitation of the Creed, the priest shakes the Aer over the gifts to fan the air (Greek: "aer") above them them, and then folds it into a triangle, and as we recite the section of the Creed which refers to the Holy Spirit, the Priest holds the folded red Aer in his hand an quivers it over the gifts in a circular fashion to represent the Flame and Dove of the Holy Spirit.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

That's all I meant by "very minor influence," i.e. your parish buys EO stuff, which has EO symbols on it and those EO symbols are used in your liturgical sevices.

I need to stress a couple of points against what some may improperly infer from the above statement.

1) Of all the “stuff” we buy, this is the only item I know of that happens to have an “EO symbol” on it.

2) When I inquired into the matter with a priest and deacon a short while ago, they were both taken back by it (after I explained to them what the symbol meant - since they were apparently unaware of its meaning), and the church does not plan on retaining these items (despite the fact they were ridiculously expensive). Use of such items in our parishes is not a practise we endorse nor plan to assume. We are not being “influenced” in any way; it was an error of judgment on part of the purchaser, and mere ignorance and carelessness on behalf of everyone else, and we plan to rectify the situation.

Quote

However, why the Coptic rites in general now only use the fans for processions and not for other more ancient things is an interesting question. That is, why do the Copts now use Byzantine-style metal fans, and these only in processions without waving them about (another Byzantine adaptation), instead of in the manner Saint Barsonophios describes even as recently as the 16th century?

As I explained to ozgeorge in my previous post, "fans" are in fact being used in the manner St. Barsonophios describes, in fulfillment of the symbolic purpose that St. Barsonophios attributes to the act. We (according to my own personal experience) simply use linen cloths to effect this practise.

Quote

Have you read the EO one?

No I haven’t. Maybe you can link me to an online copy of the text (if such a copy exists) and I can make my own personal comparison.

Quote

Only adultery and death?

Adultery, death and infidelity. There’s no compromise.

Quote

At any rate, the Coptic Church does allow for ecclesiastical re-marriage, doesn't it?

Yes. The earliest document I am aware of discussing the canon law of the Church on such matters is a thirteenth century document known as “awlad al-asal” (“The Children of Honey”). It explains the fact that a second marriage, although permitted by the Church, is not recommended, and in fact discouraged according to the understanding that a second marriage is less honourable than the first. This document in fact quotes St. Basil in support of this proposition: “If irrational turtle-doves are not inclined to re-marry, how is it that rational human beings can? It is not desirable for them to do so. With regards to clergy, it is absolutely unacceptable!” There are a few other specific circumstances and situations in which exceptions to the general permissability of a second marriage are made.

The document goes on to say: “Regarding a third marriage, it is unacceptable under any circumstance; we do not even consider it to be legal.”

Another canonical policy of the Church with respect to marriage, one I indicated in a previous thread, is the fact we do not allow for our faithful to marry others outside of the OO Church, regardless of whether or not they were baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity. The only exception I know of, as I pointed out in that other thread, is with respect to Copts marrying EO’s.

Quote

We know when and where and why the Byzantine Church changed its policies. Why did the Coptic?

I don’t know why as of yet; i'll look into it though. Nonetheless, I just think the “because the Byzantines did it” conclusion makes an unwarranted assumption from silence. Your Church was, from our perspective at the time, tainted as being Nestorian, and tensions between us were high due to the persecutions we experienced under Chalcedonian rule; in light of this, it is highly implausible to assume, in the absence of any evidence, that we would wish to adopt certain practises just to conform with your Church, unless there were some substantial underlying reason to do so.

The only instance I know of where anything Byzantine was intentionally adopted post-Chalcedon, was during the reign of Pope St. Cyril IV. This Saint was very ecumenically-minded and he had contemplated a re-union with your Church in his day. Certain hymns, such as “E-Aghapy”, were consequently incorporated into the Church to help ease any potential transition process. The Coptic Church’s rendering of "E-Aghapy" in particular can be heard here if you're interested: http://tasbeha.org/media/index.php?s=Songs%2FCoptic%2FDavid_Ensmble%2FCoptic_Melodies%2Ftrack9.mp3

« Last Edit: June 25, 2006, 10:48:55 AM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Our Priests also fan using one of the three red cloths which cover the Holy Gifts.

At this point in the Liturgy our priests' hands (the left and the right) are actually covered by linen cloths signifying the Seraphim who covers his eyes and feet with his wings due to the imperceptible glory of God.

Quote

During the recitation of the Creed, the priest shakes the Aer over the gifts to fan the air (Greek: "aer") above them them, and then folds it into a triangle, and as we recite the section of the Creed which refers to the Holy Spirit, the Priest holds the folded red Aer in his hand an quivers it over the gifts in a circular fashion to represent the Flame and Dove of the Holy Spirit.

Very interesting. During our recitation of the creed, the priest washes his hands before the congregation as a symbolic caution and warning against those who plan to partake of the Eucharist unprepared and unworthily. He shakes the water from his hands as if to declare his innocence of the consequences that will be befall those who approach the Holy Sacrament unprepared and unworthily.

« Last Edit: June 25, 2006, 11:36:42 AM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

The only instance I know of where anything Byzantine was intentionally adopted post-Chalcedon, was during the reign of Pope St. Cyril IV. This Saint was very ecumenically-minded and he had contemplated a re-union with your Church in his day. Certain hymns, such as “E-Aghapy”, were consequently incorporated into the Church to help ease any potential transition process.

EA, I don't think that "H Agapi" is really a hymn. AFAIK, this is what the priest says to the people after bread and wine are consecrated during (byzantine) liturgy, like a longer form of "peace be with you all."

As far as other byzantine adoptions, what about the iconostasis and the general coptic church design? These things were also originally from byzantine influence. Most if not all other OO churches (Syrian Armenian Ethiopian) are iconostasis-less and their churches have their own architectural style. The only way to tell the coptic architecture apart from byzantine architecture is from small things like the curve of the dome*, and if any crosses are visible on the church. *- Coptic domes tend to be shaped like bee-hives whereas byzantine domes are more evenly rounded.These are just small things which don't really have any bearing on faith and what-not but its interesting to observe.

Actually many of the domes in Lebanon, Syria , and Palestine also have bell towers with the beehive type dome---perhaps it is a middle east practice rather than just coptic.St Elias Antiochian Orthodox Church in Austin TX is a good example of this. I have also seen this type of dome advertised in a dome selling catalog and the churches listed using that type were Syrian Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox.

EA, I don't think that "H Agapi" is really a hymn. AFAIK, this is what the priest says to the people after bread and wine are consecrated during (byzantine) liturgy, like a longer form of "peace be with you all."

I guess 'hymn' was the wrong term, since it is not technically a praise to God. In the Coptic Church it is chanted on two occasions: 1) before the Patriarch, and 2) as an introduction to the anaphora in our Gregorian Liturgy (i.e. the Liturgy according to St. Gregory the Great).

That said, I think it’s a beautiful chant, and I’m glad we “borrowed” it from you guys.

Quote

As far as other byzantine adoptions, what about the iconostasis

There is undoubtedly Byzantine influence on the design of our iconstasis, particularly in relation to the three doors. However, this is a pre-Chalcedonian feature of the Church, so it’s not really a very relevant observation to the discussion at hand.

Furthermore, our iconstasis has certain unique features reflecting our own tradition, such as the Ostrich egg that hangs from the top of the royal door.

Quote

and the general coptic church design?

Our architects were very selective in the designs they adopted. For example, the only general Church design we incorporated was the “ship” design. We never adopted the Byzantine cruciform or circular designs; according to Butler, we were simply never very interested in them.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2006, 12:59:11 AM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

I located an online copy of the EO marriage rite from the goarch.org website. Our services seem more dissimilar than they are similar.

General differences include: the hymns and their underlying themes and hence their purpose, the general structure of the liturgy, the nature and themes of the prayers, the Scripture readings.

Peculiar differences: In the Coptic rite, 1) the priest ties the couple’s rings in a red silk cloth throughout the service, 2) the couple are anointed with chrism, 3) the groom is clothed with a priestly vestment, and a special spiritual vestment prayer is conducted for this purpose, 3) there is no “dance of Isaiah”.

Similarities: both the Byzantine and Coptic rite involve an initial procession and a crowning ceremony. However, these seem to be conducted in different ways, and apparently for different purposes.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

EA, a Coptic person I know recently told me that the COC is planning or wants to put the vows (a western idea) in the Coptic wedding ceremony. I guess that would make it nice. I've been to Greek and Coptic weddings where the procession down the aisle was with the traditional organ tune "Here comes..." rather than a chant by chanters or clergy but never with vows. If this is true, it will be ineresting to see how things turn out.

EA, a Coptic person I know recently told me that the COC is planning or wants to put the vows (a western idea) in the Coptic wedding ceremony. I guess that would make it nice. I've been to Greek and Coptic weddings where the procession down the aisle was with the traditional organ tune "Here comes..." rather than a chant by chanters or clergy but never with vows. If this is true, it will be ineresting to see how things turn out.

I know in the good 'ole US, whether during or before the service, all couples must be asked whether or not they wish to be married; this is a legal requirement for the validity of the ceremony. In the EO, the priest asks the couple before the ceremony begins. So we don't have vows per se, but we have been forced to openly ask the couple, an action which was unnecessary in the past since one's presence at the wedding was seen as consent.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

EA, a Coptic person I know recently told me that the COC is planning or wants to put the vows (a western idea) in the Coptic wedding ceremony.

I've never heard anything to that effect. Official sources would be nice. The Liturgy itself is replete with references to the husband's obligation to his wife and vice versa. The Church thus essentially makes their vows for them.

In any event, in my local parish the priest has advocated the use of written vows (which are merely signed; they're not recited audibly during the Liturgy or anything like that). I know this because i'm in fact the one who is assigned with the task of printing them. Here is a copy of the husband's vow to his wife:

"HANY, love your wife MARY-THERESE, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So HANY, you ought to love MARY-THERESE your own wife as your own body; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it just as the Lord does the church.

Dear blessed son HANY, may the grace of the Holy Spirit strengthen you to take unto yourself your wife MARY-THERESE, in purity of heart and in sincerity. HANY, do all that is good for MARY-THERESE. Have compassion on her and always hasten to do what gladdens MARY-THERESE’S heart. Take care of MARY-THERESE, as from now on you are responsible for her after her parents; you have been crowned with heavenly crowns and confirmed by the grace of God.

Remember HANY that if you fulfill the divine commandments, the Lord will bless you in all you do. He will grant you, HANY, blessed children and a long peaceful life: He will bless you in this life and in the hereafter."

Quote

I've been to Greek and Coptic weddings where the procession down the aisle was with the traditional organ tune "Here comes..." ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š rather than a chant by chanters or clergy but never with vows.

I know in the good 'ole US, whether during or before the service, all couples must be asked whether or not they wish to be married; this is a legal requirement for the validity of the ceremony.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š In the EO, the priest asks the couple before the ceremony begins.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š So we don't have vows per se, but we have been forced to openly ask the couple, an action which was unnecessary in the past since one's presence at the wedding was seen as consent.

It's the same story for Copts here in Australia. The presence of witnesses is also required for this legal procedure.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus